Could you pass the test?

October 14, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
What does the U.S. Constitution do? Why do some states have more representatives than others? Under the U.S. Constitution, what is one power of the federal government?

As a lawyer, you should be able to answer these questions pretty easily. But what if you were new to the U.S. and trying to become a citizen?

The government has created a new citizenship test, which has more of an emphasis on fundamental concepts of the U.S. democracy and the rights and responsibilities of citizens as opposed to more factual questions, such as ‘How many stars are on the U.S. flag?’

The idea of the redesign is to ensure naturalization applicants have a meaningful understanding of our government and history. From now on, those who apply have to take this new version of the test. You can see some of the questions on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Web site by clicking on the links at the bottom of the page.

Because the new test is concept based, it may be more challenging to those who aren’t proficient in English or who haven’t completed much education in their lives. But is that the new point of the test – to make it harder so that only those who have a firm grasp of English can pass and become citizens, or is it to make sure new citizens truly understand the concepts behind the U.S., not just the facts?

As Americans, I think we take for granted our freedoms afforded to us under our Constitution and forget about our country’s history and birth. Take a look at some of the new questions and see how many you can answer.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT